SILVA: Don't like a law? Don't defend it

This week Attorney General Eric Holder advised all attorneys general across the country that they do not have to defend marriage laws that deny marriage to gay couples on the grounds that such may be unconstitutional.

In fact, Holder said if they believe the laws are unconstitutional then they do not have to defend them. This completely flies in the face of what the Constitution set down years ago.

The Judicial Branch is the branch of government that determines the constitutionality of laws that the Legislature passes, and the Executive Branch executes the laws faithfully.

Its responsibility is not to determine what is or what is not constitutional. Now the wave of judicial ruling seems to be rolling that way - but perhaps only because no one is defending their decisions.

Now if the courts determine that states don't have the right to regulate marriage, then so be it. But that doesn't mean AGs get to determine the winner by simply refusing to play.

But let's take Holder's view and apply what he says to laws that those within the GOP may feel are unconstitutional.

How would liberals feel if conservative AGs across the country determined that assault weapon bans were unconstitutional and decided not to defend those laws in court against the NRA?

Or what about the sheriff's deputy who shows up at a house and finds a guy who has a full arsenal of assault weapons, and says, "You know, I think it's unconstitutional that the law states you can't have these," and just walks away?

Isn't the deputy supposed to arrest the man? Sure, but if the AGs are going to flout the law, why can't the deputy? Or why can't the local DA just refuse to prosecute anyone accused of illegal gun possession on the grounds that his office has determined such laws aren't constitutional?

Are they? Doesn't matter in the 'World According to Eric Holder.' You think they are, and that's just about all the confirmation you need, right?

If the highest law enforcement officer in the country is going to give AGs across the country an out in defending or executing laws they think are unconstitutional, then why shouldn't the police officer be able to determine whether or not he's going to enforce the law based on his own view of the constitution?

Of course liberals would be quick to point out that a guy having guns and the state's allowing someone to get married aren't the same thing.

But that would miss the point of what Holder's trying to do. He's saying that the rule of law isn't an objective thing. You don't need a court to determine if something is unconstitutional - all you need is to have your own opinion and use it to defeat legislation you don't like by going golfing instead of to court.

It's the same with President Obama and many of his executive orders. Both men are setting a new precedent that Republicans AGs and future presidents can walk through.

Who needs to go to the trouble of repealing Obamacare through Congress when all you need is a president to strike it with an executive order?

Can't get the individual mandate lifted from the ACA through legislation? No worries. Just take Obama's current delays on big business and apply them to the individual - and make it indefinite.

You don't need Congress to vote and amend the law, because Obama has proven that you don't. Though I will note Congresses have sat idly by and allowed it because both parties think they will eventually benefit from it.

When President George W. Bush and the Republicans were trying to reform Social Security back in the mid-2000s, who knew that all President Bush had to do was draw a line through parts of Social Security legislation or Medicare with an executive order?

Yes, I remember the statements signed under Bush that rivaled Obama's use of executive order in the quest to consolidate more power in the Executive Branch.

Both men sought the same goal under different mechanisms, and it's time Congress began to reassert itself as a third co-equal branch of government.

And it's in the best interest of Democrats to want to see that happen - because 2017 might bring a political environment to D.C. wherein these precedents won't benefit them, or the country as a whole.